Re: Re: Bug#458819: ITP: nettee -- a network "tee" program
> Out of curiosity, besides being a bit easier to remember/type,
> and not requiring the user to choose a port,
> what benefits over combining normal tee and netcat does it have?
> for example:
> On A: nettee -in IMAGE -next B -v 31 #full logging
> On B: nettee -next C >/dev/hda
> On C: nettee -next D >/dev/hda
> On D: nettee -next E >/dev/hda
> On E: nettee -next F >/dev/hda
> On F: nettee >/dev/hda
> AFAICT, that could be done more or less equivlently as
> On A: nc -q0 B 12345 <IMAGE
> On B: nc -l 12345 | tee >(nc -q0 C 12345) >/dev/hda
> On C: nc -l 12345 | tee >(nc -q0 D 12345) >/dev/hda
> On D: nc -l 12345 | tee >(nc -q0 E 12345) >/dev/hda
> On E: nc -l 12345 | tee >(nc -q0 F 12345) >/dev/hda
> On F: nc -l 12345 >/dev/hda
> (Some stdout redirections to /dev/null could be added, so stdin on the reciving does not come out as stdout on the sending end.)
IMHO, i think that the main benefits are:
- simplicity: like you already said, the simple command, without complex
pipe setups like showed in your example comments. You have to agree
with me that that netcat + tee pipe commands are not trivial. If I
had known about that commands, i will not have searched for somenthing
like nettee in Google.
- multiple target: you can specify multiple targets to send the stream
and not only one. Use the -next hostlist1(,hostlist2(,hostlist3(...)))
Ok.. ok.. you can make it with a complex pipe; i just can say that
i will say again the previous argument.
- error check in the stream data: there is a check for transmission
errors in the code. This is util when there are failed nodes.
- error handling while data is being transmited: there is a lot of
options to the chain not die if there is a single node failure. In
your pipe commands, if one node die, the full chain is lost.
In short, simplicity and error check.
If you liked, can you be my sponsor? :)
| Joel Franco Guzmán .''`.
| self-powered by : :' :
| Debian Linux `. `'